"There isn't a right way to become educated; there are as many ways as there are fingerprints." - John Taylor Gatto
Another horrific school shooting has occurred and once again the discussion turns to the question of how to keep this from happening. One side predictably advocates for enhanced gun control measures. Outlawing certain types of guns and stiffer background checks will keep guns out of the hands of children, they insist. Another side argues for arming teachers. We make sure that politicians and celebrities are guarded, they argue. Are our children not equally worthy of protection? Yet another faction feels that a number of handy devices could provide the safety needed. Safe rooms and door-blocking devices could thwart an active shooter. One school has even suggested that providing students with rocks to throw would be a deterrent. Then there are schemes for added security--clear backpacks, dogs, and metal detectors, for example--which would essentially turn school hallways into the educational equivalent of TSA checkpoints.
There is another solution, however, that is not a part of mainstream discussion right now, although it is an obvious one that is worthy of consideration. That solution is the elimination of government-run schooling as we currently know it. For years, experienced educators such as John Taylor Gatto, John Holt, Grace Llewellyn, and Sir Ken Robinson have been telling everyone who will listen that the modern-day interpretation of government schooling is flawed at best and harmful at worst. In spite of these dire warnings, many parents have continued to send their children back to classrooms where they not only receive an inferior education, but can sometimes also experience both mental and physical abuse.
There are countless stories of children who have been bullied at the hands of their peers and have turned to suicide in desperation. Parents want to know why the schools failed to protect their children from the bullies, but a better question might be why the parents failed to protect their children from the schools. The idea that parents would willingly send a child to an institution day after day with the fear that they could be shot and killed while there is mind-boggling. Do these parents not realize that there are other options? Are children not considered worth the sacrifices that must be made in order to be schooled at home?
The need for children to sit in a room for hours on end listening to lectures simply does not exist. Neither is there a need for the unsatisfying worksheets that children are expected to complete. These are simply "busywork" designed to keep them occupied and in their seats while adding nothing meaningful to their educational experience. Even the curricula that are used to decide what children should learn and when they should learn it are designed for the practical purpose of consistency among schools and classrooms, not because they have any intrinsic value.
The internet has created a world where there is unprecedented access to
information. Quality educational programs abound, many of which are
absolutely free. A one-size-fits-all approach to education is no longer necessary, if it ever were necessary. Children can learn comfortably in their own homes while having their learning experience lovingly facilitated by their parents. They can learn through educational co-ops in which parents can come together to share responsibilities and guide students in the areas in which they are experienced. Students can come together with other students who have similar interests in order to create a shared experience. Small neighborhood and community-run schools are also an option. The possibilities are limited only by the bounds of the creativity and imagination of the children and their parents.
So why does our society continue operating under the delusion that these inferior institutions are our best and only option? The answer to that question can be summed up in one word, politics. There is money to be made by many players in the educational system. There is control over the hearts and minds of the populace to be possessed when the state decides what they are learning and when they are learning it. There is obedience to the state to be instilled when children are raised by state-sponsored strangers rather than their parents.
How do political players convince parents that these institutions are best? This can also be summed up in one word, propaganda. How else can one explain a scenario where parents feel that it is safer to send a sixteen-year-old to a school where they fear they may be shot, rather than to trust them to be home alone for a few hours a day doing lessons on a computer? How else could parents possibly have the notion that their children will be unsocialized, if they are not sent to an institution where talking and playing are discouraged and bullying is ignored?
Every parent in the country has the power within their hands to create a safer school. We do not need teachers, administrators, or politicians to make it happen. No letters, petitions, or marches are necessary. Simply take the children out of school and never send them back.
